Kooru wins the Internets today for all the Slackers. W00t W00t!

Regards.

1 members found this post helpful.

Ubuntu was my first distro (back in 2007) and I still use Mint (based on Ubuntu).

The best reason NOT to use Ubuntu (in my opinion) is that "distro hopping" is a rite of passage around here. There are dozens of excellent distros, and whether you are a beginning, intermediate, or advanced user, you should experiment and find which distro works best for YOU.

Here are the reasons I personally have settled on an Ubuntu-based distro (after trying all the others):

1. Long Term Support (LTS) through 2019, that's YEARS longer than the current Debian Stable
2. Easy to install updated and non-free applications because most developers offer a .deb package and/or PPA
3. Lots of support, how-to's, and tutorials on the web (but don't blindly follow advice from random blogs)
4. Project is focused on the needs of everyday desktop/laptop users like me

Some people will argue, "don't use Ubuntu; it's derived from Debian UNSTABLE code!!!" to which I reply, "so is Debian Stable."

I don't like *buntu and *buntu doesn't like me.
If *buntu liked me, it would be like Slack or BSD.

But — as I suspect you know perfectly well — Debian Stable is created by subjecting the Testing repository to very careful scrutiny during the freeze before it's released. There's no way that the small staff at Canonical can check things as well as the 1000+ Debian developers, not to mention all the people who've been using that repository for a year or more. Also, Debian's policy has always been "it's ready when it's ready", while Ubuntu's 6-monthly cycle is best described as "here I come, ready or not".

1 members found this post helpful.

In defence of apt/dpkg when used properly they actually rarely break a system. Apt-get probably isn't going to work too well moving from one version of Ubuntu to the next as the Debian developers didn't write it or any of their packages with that specific case in mind.
Since I learned to be careful with dist-upgrades (the system gives a warning and allows you to bail out for a reason) I've not had any problems on either of my Sid systems.
As to compiling third party applications -- I'm not quite sure why you would compile against existing libraries then dist-upgrade anyway? What would you do in Slackware, leave the old libraries in place or recompile? Either way what is the advantage over Debian -- don't you want your compiled application to take advantage of the latest libraries? It is also simple in Debian to either simlink a library using an older name for the link or to just drop the library into the path of the application -- again, not much different to Slackware.
Not trying to argue which is better, by the way, I just think that these things come down to choice not one being better. It could be argued that learning how to use apt-get is time not spent learning Linux but that depends upon what you want to use any why.

@273: Sure, Debian is a great project, and I've used it as my main system for several years. It was a rock, never broke, never crashed. I might use Debian again in the future, but now I prefer other systems, because of package management and several other reasons. To be fair, no one is arguing against Debian here.

Philip

Indeed, it is "Why not to use Ubuntu". In some ways I am trying to get over my laziness so I'll install Slackware but I do find that apt-get is much maligned in the same way as Slackware's "No dependency resolution".
I suppose, on topic, the thing to learn from this is that Ubuntu may not always use apt so well.
I found that if/when apt messes up things are generally easier to fix in Debian (or just more certain) than *buntu.

The only reason I don't use Ubuntu is that I prefer Slackware. Same reason I have for not using any other distro. I tried most of them in my distrohopping days, and settled on Slack. I'll give Ubuntu credit for one thing: in its early days it brought Linux to the attention of a lot more people and computer magazines. Now it gets too much attention, compared to any other distro.

So I guess the OP realized that most of the reason for not using Ubuntu is ethical vs. functional. That's all I was going to say when I came into this thread.

That's true. This probably happens whenever a statement loses too much of its connections with facts, becoming a sort of one-sided slogan: so you hear/read statements that should have been preceded by "I've heard that", and maybe followed by "Is that true?". But sometimes it's really easy to inadvertently fall into "slogan mode".

I'm not much into that, but probably one of the reasons lies in the huge differences between their policies, priorities, and even communities. For instance, I often wondered how much testing work has to go into Debian's package metadata alone. That's a terrific framework, which obviously requires a huge effort in order to achieve their proverbial stability. At *buntu they clearly have different priorities, and I might even be OK with that, as long as they don't go into spyware or other nasty things (which they actually did).

actually that is the reason why I do not use ubuntu. You see when there is a stable library and trust me in the GNU world new is not always better stable is the key. So if it is not a GLIBC problem or the newer program does not require a newer library why would you change it. simple answer is one hand does not always talk to the other in the debian and ubuntu world.

make it simple there is mass amount of programs out there that will only compile in certain gcc and anyone can install an extra gcc or g++.
but the libraries I have to compile against have different dependencies and are not what I need.

Is this Ubuntus problem no! Is it My problem Yes. How do I handle it not through a ppa. I select a tool that allows me multiple tools and still upgrade. And
since you have brought up the point not Ubuntu's problem it is mine so how do I solve it by not using a system that breaks my work .

Install software and upgrading 2 different things. if you have had to deal with the libpango ever changing evolving through the years with different gtk's
you would start to understand why a system needs to be able to upgrade and use old or new libraries. And i am sure that anyone can do this in Ubuntu.
but my point was why I do not use Ubuntu and I stated apt-get was my reason.
And yes slackware does it very simple read it is that simple it is transparent. open up the note pad and read then install what you need.
if you are using the SBOPKG tool 0.37.0 then you will see there a new way. Open your favorite browser and search sbopkg sqg there is a link for the gui apt-getters.

I should say that I use Ubuntu on a netbook. There are two main things that I don't like about it which is why I don't use it on my main computer:

1. There is no separate root account. As far as I know, there is no separate root account on an Ubuntu system. If you require root privileges you must use sudo. The system does not always work. Sometimes automatic software updates will install without asking for my administrative password. Not having a separate root account goes against the grain of probably every Unix / Linux system in existence.

2. As others have said Ubuntu is buggy. On my netbook I often get the error 'your system has experienced a critical error would you like to report it'. I would not trust Ubuntu on a system that I use for urgent work because of these bugs.

There are other things that I don't like about Ubuntu but these are the main problems I have with it.

Sorry I haven't been responding - I've been immersed in Slackware on VirtualBox. I doubt I'd use Ubuntu on a main system knowing now how buggy it is, and the ethics are meh... No root wouldn't much bother me, not unless it didn't cause problems--which it apparently does.

Nothing wrong with 'sudo' and in fact I think it is the wave of the future. In order for 'root' account to be secure, the computer must have a single trusted administrator, or else a team of trusted administrators who are 100% comfortable being completely interchangeable and having no accountability for each others' actions. As soon as you give 'root' password to multiple real-world imperfect human users, security is broken. Since computing is becoming more and more of a shared resource with many users ("the cloud" and whatnot) Linux needs a way to give fine-grain, logged administrator access, and properly configured 'sudo' is the best tool for the job.

In the interest of staying on-topic: No reason why an Ubuntu user can't enable the root account and/or tweak sudo settings as desired; the instructions are in Ubuntu Wiki and prominently linked as a 'sticky' in the Ubuntu Forums. There are many reasons not to use Ubuntu but I don't think sudo needs to be one of them.

Absolutely, a PROPERLY CONFIGURED sudo is great, but Ubuntu's approach is about as far from "properly configured" as you can possibly get!

A properly configured sudo setup involves having a REAL ENABLED root account with a strong password that's locked away somewhere, and very limited sudo access so that the administrator(s) can perform their daily tasks without having to go grab the root password multiple times a day, thus compromising its security. This is NOT what Ubuntu's setup is.

Where are you seeing that? The only applicable place I can find on the Ubuntu forums, it does NOT say how to enable to root account, it says how to access a root shell, and it goes on to say that any member who provides instructions on enabling the root account without also telling the user why it's a bad idea and how to disable it after the operation is done violates their TOS, and according to several LQ users, will get you banned (they came here after getting banned from Ubuntu's forums).

Properly configuring sudo, as described above, requires the user to go against Ubuntu's recommendations by permanently enabling the root account and limiting their own sudo access. This is fine for experienced users, but Ubuntu goes on to say that providing instructions on how to do this for other users will also get you banned from the Ubuntu support forums. That is the problem I have with them, and yes, it is a reason to not use Ubuntu in my opinion.